Corporate Whistleblower Protection and Retaliation Laws Archives

Where are SOX whistleblower cases litigated?

A claim under the anti-retaliation provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act must be filed initially at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration at the U.S. Department of Labor. They will perform an investigation and if they conclude that the employer violated SOX, OSHA can order preliminary reinstatement.

Who administers the whistleblower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act?

A claim under the anti-retaliation provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act must be brought initially at the OSHA at the US Department of Labor. OSHA … Continued

Do mandatory arbitration agreements encompass SOX whistleblower claims?

Sarbanes-Oxley retaliation claims are exempt from mandatory arbitration agreements. The statute states: “No predispute arbitration agreement shall be valid or enforceable, if the agreement requires arbitration of a dispute arising under this section.”

Can I sue an individual under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act?

Individual Liability Under SOX Whistleblower Protection Law Yes, a whistleblower can bring a SOX retaliation claim against an individual who has the functional ability … Continued

Must a NDAA Whistleblower Retaliation Plaintiff Prove a Subjective Belief of a Violation?

Protected Whistleblowing Under NDAA Whistleblower Law The whistleblower protection provisions of the NDAA protect the disclosure of information that the employee reasonably believes is … Continued

What level of detail is required in a Sarbanes-Oxley complaint?

What level of detail is required in a Sarbanes-Oxley retaliation complaint filed at OSHA? A SOX complaint filed at OSHA need not plead every … Continued

Is a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower required to prove fraud?

Is a SOX whistleblower required to prove shareholder fraud? A SOX complainant need not allege or prove shareholder fraud to receive SOX’s protection. SOX was … Continued

Can OSHA order the reinstatement of a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower?

If OSHA determines there is “reasonable cause” to believe the complaint has merit, with limited exceptions “it shall issue” a preliminary order restoring the complainant to his or her employment status and requiring the employer to take affirmative action to abate the violation. 49 U.S.C. § 42121(b)(3)(B); 29 CFR § 1980.105(a)(1). Reinstatement orders are immediately effective and are not stayed pending the resolution of any objections or appeal. See 49 U.S.C. § 4212 (b)(2)(A).

Does subjecting an employee to heightened scrutiny evidence retaliation?

Jumping on the first instance of poor performance or misconduct indicates pretext, especially where the employee has a record of strong performance prior to engaging in protected activity.

Must a whistleblower prove retaliatory motive in a DOL whistleblower retaliation case?

A SOX whistleblower need not demonstrate the existence of a retaliatory motive on the part of the employer to establish that protected activity was a contributing factor to the personnel action. But evidence of a retaliatory motive, e.g., statement of retaliatory animus or resentment of the complainant’s whistleblowing, is relevant circumstantial evidence to prove retaliation.

Is a whistleblower’s motive for engaging in protected activity relevant in a whistleblower protection case?

Motive for engaging in protected activity not relevant in a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower-protection case A whistleblower’s motive for engaging in protected conduct is irrelevant. See Henderson … Continued

Why should courts be skeptical of an adverse employment action taken based on subjective criteria?

Subjective standards are difficult for courts to evaluate and difficult for plaintiffs to rebut, and their use in employment decisions should be viewed with suspicion. See Hill v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 885 F.2d 804, 808-09 (11th Cir. 1989); see also Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977, 1009 (1988) (Blackmun J., concurring) ( “Allowing an employer to escape liability simply by articulating vague, inoffensive-sounding subjective criteria would disserve Title VII’s goal of eradicating discrimination in employment.”); Miles v. M.N.C. Corp., 750 F.2d 867, 871 (11th Cir. 1985) (“subjective evaluations . . . provide a ready mechanism for … discrimination.”).

Page 4